#Full motion video
8 messages in this thread
> My need is to bring in high quality video at 30 fps, compress it so it can
> fit on removable media (removable hard disks would be prefered) and then
> play it back … on an Intel 486 based machine in full screen mode.
bascially you have asked for something that is not possible with current
technology.
The amount of information (bytes) that need to go from disk to screen would be
something like (640x480x256 color=300Kb/frame * 30fps = 9Mb/sec *60sec =
540Mb/min * 30 minutes = 16.2 Gigabytes of data). The first problem is getting
data into the VGA display fast enough. That poor system was just never designed
for it. Then comes the problem of getting data off of the disk fast enough.
Then decompressing without adding too much delay.
Maybe in a year or three. Sorry.
Jerry:
Isn't this what QuickTime, Video for Windows, UlitMotion and DVI are all about?
Best – Rich Bowers
Rich–
The only way to get full screen 30 fps video on a PC (or Mac) today is to use
an Intel ActionMedia II board (or the NuVideo DVI board for a Mac) or a Motion
JPEG board like the Videologic Mediaspace.
Hardware compression/decompression coprocessors are needed to move so many
pixels so fast. With the AMII, the full screen image is still not *really*
full screen–it's blown up from a quarter-screen image.
All of the software-only playback solutions (QuickTime, VFW, etc.) use smaller
image sizes and/or lower frame rates.
Jim Kauffman / Lehigh Interactive Multimedia
Jim:
For years I've been asking this question, and I'd be interested in your view.
What is so magical about 30 fps, and BTW, what is so magical about full screen?
Film uses 24 fps and we still get the illusion of a moving picture. PAL and
SECAM use different scans and we still get the illusion. So what if one
technique artificially blows up a quarter screen to a full screen if it still
gets the job done?
I have held that the most meaningful target is a functional one (create the
illusion at a reasonable quality that communicates) instead of a technical one
(so many blips at such and such a rate). What do you think?
Best – Rich Bowers
Rich–
>> What is so magical about 30 fps, and BTW, what is so magical about full
screen?
Nothing magical about either one. 30 fps is the U.S./Japan NTSC television
standard, while the European PAL system uses 25 fps. "Full screen" is only
magical because people like big TV images–35" and larger screens are the
hottest selling TV's, and IMO they just magnify the flaws in the NTSC signal.
In America, bigger is better.
In practical terms (and here I'm speaking as a developer of a few dozen
interactive video apps), a large, sharp image can be very important if you're
trying to show detail. NTSC TV is optimize for moving images with limited
detail. Even full screen laserdisc images (400+ lines resolution) provide
inadequate detail if you're trying to show the working actions of control
panels, intricate machinery, etc. for training or technical illustration.
I agree with your point about functional targets. Ideally, what I'd like as a
developer is a system that lets me choose appropriate frame rates, screen sizes
and resolutions for whatever I'm trying to do. If I'm using a talking head, 15
fps at 160x120x256 colors is fine; if I'm displaying a Monet reproduction, I
want a 1280x1024x16 million colors still frame; if I'm showing Blade Runner (a
film with subtle lighting and lots of detail), I want 72 fps at 4096x3072x16m
colors!
–Jim
What about the TMM compression? It's supposed to handle up to four hours of 30
fps video and doens't have compression degregation. Screen size doesn't matter
because of the method of compression.
I don't know much about this one, just what I've read in a few press releases.
Jerry
Could you post the phone number for TMM if you've got their press releases?
Thanks.
David,
I looked around the office and can't find the article but I know where I saw
it. It was in 'New Media' either last month or the month before.
Jerry Warner
CD Solutions, Inc.